Two Eds (11/12/13)
I wrote about Labour's 'Two Eds' back in 2011 and it seems that others, including the Independent's John Rentoul, are also sceptical that two such tainted figures from the Brown era are capable of convincing the voters that they have a credible economic plan.
Essentially, Labour's song remains the same although whether anyone is really listening remains to be seen.
Shout it out – two Eds aren't better than one
By John Rentoul
Meeting a wall of noise with a wall of slogans is not the answer
Essentially, Labour's song remains the same although whether anyone is really listening remains to be seen.
Shout it out – two Eds aren't better than one
By John Rentoul
Meeting a wall of noise with a wall of slogans is not the answer
It is a paradox that Ed Miliband should sack Ed Balls, and that he could do so, yet he will not. Let us look at the three parts of this in turn. I say Balls should be moved to shadow foreign secretary not because I disagree with him. On the contrary, it is another paradox that Balls has been broadly right about the economy since the crash, although it is hard to be sure, not least because the difference between him and the Chancellor has not been as great as either of them pretends.
Balls would have kept public borrowing higher at the start of this parliament, which might have kept the economy ticking over at a slightly higher rpm than learner-driver Osborne managed when he nearly stalled the engine. As a result, tax revenues might have been a bit higher and borrowing might have been a bit lower now.
Balls should be moved not because of his economics but because of his politics. His performance in the Commons responding to last week's Autumn Statement was a disaster, albeit with a small "d". It should not matter that much. He made a simple, rectifiable mistake. He responded to the wall of noise generated by the Tory whips by shouting, just as they hoped he would. The more he shouted, the more they barracked, the redder he became, and the harder it became to listen to him.
A better actor – and any MP who wants to command the House, just as any teacher who wants to command the classroom, knows to be an actor – would have lowered his voice so that the Tories would have had to be quiet to hear him.
But Ed Balls has a larger problem, identified by his critics to left and right. Norman Tebbit, in the course of a grand-old-parliamentarian complaint about the "poor quality of the present generation of members", said the Tory tactics were misguided. "It would have made far more impact had the shadow Chancellor's response been heard in near total silence, save the odd snigger of disbelief."
Balls's big problem is the content of his speeches, not the delivery. Despite the heckling on Thursday, he stuck to a script, most of which he had written in advance. The problem was hinted at by Torsten Bell, Ed Miliband's economic adviser, in the email he sent to a colleague last month that went by mistake to a Tory MP of the same name. "As an example of why we're having problems on EB messaging – this is his current three-part argument: Cost of living; Recovery built to last; Economy works for working people. Nightmare."
Some people could not see what was wrong with Bell's account of Balls' "messaging", except, possibly, that Bell called it "messaging". I am guessing, but he could have been referring to Balls's style of "argument", which consists of arranging sound-bites in groups of three.
The sound-bites are not wrong. Who can argue with a recovery built to last? But they are hard to listen to. He does not sound like someone who has thought about his opponent's argument and who can explain why, however well-intentioned, it doesn't quite add up. That is an actor-teacher's skill, and he doesn't have it.
He has to persuade people that he can be trusted to run the economy. Meeting a wall of noise with a wall of slogans is not the answer. Being right about a technical question of demand management three years ago is not the answer either. People think the Labour government borrowed and spent too much. Which it did. It wasn't as bad as pretended by the Tories, who supported it at the time, and it wasn't the cause of the crash, but Gordon Brown kept borrowing at the peak of the boom. Balls, more than Miliband who was just as much part of it, is seen as sharing responsibility for it.
So Miliband should move Balls. He should not recall Alistair Darling. Darling disagreed with Brown, but not enough to resign and so he, too, shares responsibility for the past. Miliband should make Chuka Umunna or Stella Creasy shadow Chancellor. Someone with shock value and star quality, who was not an MP when Labour was in power. What is more, he could.
The Miliband-Balls relationship has been misread as Walter the Softy imprisoned by Balls the Bully. Actually, Labour would have benefited if Balls had been stronger, better able to resist some of the soft anti-market nonsense Miliband favours. For all that Tories like to portray Balls as a mafia-boss faction leader, it is hard to see how many divisions he could mobilise to stop Miliband moving him.
Indeed, one way in which Thursday's poor performance mattered was that it further weakened the Balls faction among Labour MPs, who want someone at the despatch box who makes them feel good.
Finally, then, to the third part of the paradox. I do not think Miliband will move Balls. Lulled by an average six-point opinion-poll lead, Miliband is oblivious to the urgency of Labour's credibility crisis. He thinks that he, Miliband, is winning the argument; that public opinion has shifted and is demanding a kinder, gentler capitalism. Perhaps he is right about that. I don't think he is, and I suspect Balls is sceptical too. But this is Miliband's election to lose and he must lose it in his own way.
I wrote this piece about whether Two Eds are better than one back in January 2011 - but in the two plus years than have passed Labour is still struggling badly to get its message across.
The change was forced on Ed Miliband, of course, because Alan Johnson stood down as shadow chancellor for personal reasons - but having two people at the helm who are so closely identified with Gordon Brown still seems like a high risk strategy.
The signs are that Labour is now trying to change direction - to distance itself from its recent past - during which time the two Eds have signally failed to convince voters that they have a viable plan to help the economy grow while keeping public spending under control.
Such a pity that Alan Johnson is no longer there - he gave some real gravitas to the Labour front bench and a sense that while he is a full-time politician - he's not just another party hack.
Two Eds - Better Than One? (24 January 2011)
Ed Miliband's decision to appoint Ed Balls as the new shadow chancellor - means that two former proteges of Gordon Brown are now in charge of Labour's economic policy.
Now no one is seriously suggesting that Gordon Brown and his allies created - the economic crisis the country faces today.
But he did allow the UK economy to overheat spectacularly - particularly in the housing market - and he did encourage an enormous credit boom which was then followed by the mother of all busts.
So the charge that can be fairly levelled at Brown and Co. - is that they took their eye off the ball - and left the UK economy in a weaker state to weather the storm than many of our key competitors.
And up until just before the general election - Gordon Brown's solution was to spend our way out of trouble - without the need to tackle the enormous public spending deficit built up under his premiership.
But the truth is Gordon Brown couldn't even convince his own chancellor - another Scot, Alistair Darling - to follow him down the path of the 'deficit deniers'.
Because Alistair Darling declared that cuts in public spending were vital and necessary - albeit on a slower and less ambitious scale - to the one now advocated by the coalition government.
In opposition Labour has come over all shy about what it would do - specifically - to reduce public spending while taking practical steps to encourage economic growth.
But that is exactly what the mainstream political parties are all committed to - to a greater or slightly lesser degree.
All now accept that public spending needs to be re-balanced, reduced or cut back - depending on your choice of language - yet there's a nervousness that maybe Ed Balls is not fully on board.
Time will tell whether the Labour leader's decision turns out to be a case - where two Eds really are better than one.
Balls would have kept public borrowing higher at the start of this parliament, which might have kept the economy ticking over at a slightly higher rpm than learner-driver Osborne managed when he nearly stalled the engine. As a result, tax revenues might have been a bit higher and borrowing might have been a bit lower now.
Balls should be moved not because of his economics but because of his politics. His performance in the Commons responding to last week's Autumn Statement was a disaster, albeit with a small "d". It should not matter that much. He made a simple, rectifiable mistake. He responded to the wall of noise generated by the Tory whips by shouting, just as they hoped he would. The more he shouted, the more they barracked, the redder he became, and the harder it became to listen to him.
A better actor – and any MP who wants to command the House, just as any teacher who wants to command the classroom, knows to be an actor – would have lowered his voice so that the Tories would have had to be quiet to hear him.
But Ed Balls has a larger problem, identified by his critics to left and right. Norman Tebbit, in the course of a grand-old-parliamentarian complaint about the "poor quality of the present generation of members", said the Tory tactics were misguided. "It would have made far more impact had the shadow Chancellor's response been heard in near total silence, save the odd snigger of disbelief."
Balls's big problem is the content of his speeches, not the delivery. Despite the heckling on Thursday, he stuck to a script, most of which he had written in advance. The problem was hinted at by Torsten Bell, Ed Miliband's economic adviser, in the email he sent to a colleague last month that went by mistake to a Tory MP of the same name. "As an example of why we're having problems on EB messaging – this is his current three-part argument: Cost of living; Recovery built to last; Economy works for working people. Nightmare."
Some people could not see what was wrong with Bell's account of Balls' "messaging", except, possibly, that Bell called it "messaging". I am guessing, but he could have been referring to Balls's style of "argument", which consists of arranging sound-bites in groups of three.
The sound-bites are not wrong. Who can argue with a recovery built to last? But they are hard to listen to. He does not sound like someone who has thought about his opponent's argument and who can explain why, however well-intentioned, it doesn't quite add up. That is an actor-teacher's skill, and he doesn't have it.
He has to persuade people that he can be trusted to run the economy. Meeting a wall of noise with a wall of slogans is not the answer. Being right about a technical question of demand management three years ago is not the answer either. People think the Labour government borrowed and spent too much. Which it did. It wasn't as bad as pretended by the Tories, who supported it at the time, and it wasn't the cause of the crash, but Gordon Brown kept borrowing at the peak of the boom. Balls, more than Miliband who was just as much part of it, is seen as sharing responsibility for it.
So Miliband should move Balls. He should not recall Alistair Darling. Darling disagreed with Brown, but not enough to resign and so he, too, shares responsibility for the past. Miliband should make Chuka Umunna or Stella Creasy shadow Chancellor. Someone with shock value and star quality, who was not an MP when Labour was in power. What is more, he could.
The Miliband-Balls relationship has been misread as Walter the Softy imprisoned by Balls the Bully. Actually, Labour would have benefited if Balls had been stronger, better able to resist some of the soft anti-market nonsense Miliband favours. For all that Tories like to portray Balls as a mafia-boss faction leader, it is hard to see how many divisions he could mobilise to stop Miliband moving him.
Indeed, one way in which Thursday's poor performance mattered was that it further weakened the Balls faction among Labour MPs, who want someone at the despatch box who makes them feel good.
Finally, then, to the third part of the paradox. I do not think Miliband will move Balls. Lulled by an average six-point opinion-poll lead, Miliband is oblivious to the urgency of Labour's credibility crisis. He thinks that he, Miliband, is winning the argument; that public opinion has shifted and is demanding a kinder, gentler capitalism. Perhaps he is right about that. I don't think he is, and I suspect Balls is sceptical too. But this is Miliband's election to lose and he must lose it in his own way.
Two Eds (9 June 2013)
I wrote this piece about whether Two Eds are better than one back in January 2011 - but in the two plus years than have passed Labour is still struggling badly to get its message across.
The change was forced on Ed Miliband, of course, because Alan Johnson stood down as shadow chancellor for personal reasons - but having two people at the helm who are so closely identified with Gordon Brown still seems like a high risk strategy.
The signs are that Labour is now trying to change direction - to distance itself from its recent past - during which time the two Eds have signally failed to convince voters that they have a viable plan to help the economy grow while keeping public spending under control.
Such a pity that Alan Johnson is no longer there - he gave some real gravitas to the Labour front bench and a sense that while he is a full-time politician - he's not just another party hack.
Two Eds - Better Than One? (24 January 2011)
Ed Miliband's decision to appoint Ed Balls as the new shadow chancellor - means that two former proteges of Gordon Brown are now in charge of Labour's economic policy.
Now no one is seriously suggesting that Gordon Brown and his allies created - the economic crisis the country faces today.
But he did allow the UK economy to overheat spectacularly - particularly in the housing market - and he did encourage an enormous credit boom which was then followed by the mother of all busts.
So the charge that can be fairly levelled at Brown and Co. - is that they took their eye off the ball - and left the UK economy in a weaker state to weather the storm than many of our key competitors.
And up until just before the general election - Gordon Brown's solution was to spend our way out of trouble - without the need to tackle the enormous public spending deficit built up under his premiership.
But the truth is Gordon Brown couldn't even convince his own chancellor - another Scot, Alistair Darling - to follow him down the path of the 'deficit deniers'.
Because Alistair Darling declared that cuts in public spending were vital and necessary - albeit on a slower and less ambitious scale - to the one now advocated by the coalition government.
In opposition Labour has come over all shy about what it would do - specifically - to reduce public spending while taking practical steps to encourage economic growth.
But that is exactly what the mainstream political parties are all committed to - to a greater or slightly lesser degree.
All now accept that public spending needs to be re-balanced, reduced or cut back - depending on your choice of language - yet there's a nervousness that maybe Ed Balls is not fully on board.
Time will tell whether the Labour leader's decision turns out to be a case - where two Eds really are better than one.
